McKenna-Inslee: Not blood sport, but a real dogfight

The Rob McKenna vs. Jay Inslee contest for Governor is not yet a blood sport — our politics are more restrained than, say, Massachusetts — but it turned into a real dog fight during a debate in Yakima on Tuesday night.

Ex-Rep. Inslee tried to come across as an affable Saint Bernard, talking up such themes as clean energy. Attorney General McKenna was the bulldog digging his teeth into the lack of specifics in Inslee’s answers and promises.

Inslee

The candidates had unmistakable goals. McKenna repeatedly sought to depict Inslee as a product of Washington, D.C., gridlock that has failed to resolve such issues as immigration reform. “I haven’t been in Congress the last 15 years like Congressman Inslee,” said the Republican Attorney General.

Inslee sought to tie McKenna to a national Republican Party that has become socially regressive, has used immigration as a “wedge issue”, and seeks to weaken and roll back environmental protection.

“We should move forward on a woman’s right of choice, not move backwards, we should not move backwards on marriage equality, we should not move backwards on environmental protection,” Inslee said in his closing statement.

Earlier, when Inslee suggested that McKenna would “reduce our standards” in protecting the environment, his opponent shot back: “I love the way Congressman Inslee is trying to nationalize the race.”

McKenna autographing a poster for a supporter.

The candidates clashed on how the state will get the $1 billion necessary to upgrade support for K through 12 schools as a court decision recently mandated. But neither gave voters a clear idea of how they will boost education without measures to increase state revenues.

Inslee repeated a theme of his stump speech, promising to save money by implementing “lean management systems.” He vaguely citing examples of The Boeing Co. and Virginia Mason Hospital. “We need to embrace those systems throughout state government,” said Inslee.

“Wow! I keep waiting for Congressman Inslee to tell us how much money he is going to free up from lean management,” McKenna replied.

McKenna is clearly and proudly a policy wonk. Asked about the state’s shortage of farm workers, he discussed revising the “H2A process” to allow for more “guest workers” — farmers working temporarily in the United States — under “H1V visas.”

Inslee talked in gauzy terms about reaching a “bipartisan consensus,” and passing a version of the Dream Act that “helps agriculture and helps students.” He argued — accurately — that Republicans on Capitol Hill have “locked up” the legislation.

A debate issue that started Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential on a downward spiral — driver’s licenses for those lacking documentation that they are legally in the United States — produced another clash.

A driver’s license is the basic instrument of identification in America, McKenna argued. It should be issued only to those who produce proof of legal residence. Others should receive a “permit to continue to drive”, but not a full license.

Inslee talked around the question. He spoke of “fine young people” in Yakima who should be able to drive across the mountains to attend the University of Washington. He called for “more rigorous assessments” and “tightening our system” so people given licenses are who they say they are.

“Congressman Inslee is trying to muddle the distinction,” McKenna shot back. A driver’s license should be issued to those “who prove you are here legally.” A lesser permit to continue driving must not be “an identity document.”

The two candidates disagreed on a lot. Inslee would embrace a provision of the Affordable Care Act that would allow expanded coverage of those on Medicaid, at federal expense. But McKenna warned that the state will face a “pretty stiff bill” if it encourages those eligible for Medicaid to abandon their current coverage.

“The goal is to keep them on private insurance as much as possible,” McKenna argued. Inslee accused McKenna of saying that thousands of Washington residents “should not have insurance..”

McKenna put himself squarely on the side of Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1185, which would again impose a “Supermajority” requirement: A two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature would be required to raise taxes or close tax loopholes. “The folks who support Mr. Inslee have gone out and suspended a law that the people want,” he said, noting past votes on the question.

Inslee insisted, “In my plan, we’re not going to request additional taxes.” He argued that a Supermajority requirement gives a minority of legislators additional powers. “I’m old-fashioned, I believe everybody should get one vote,” argued the Democratic candidate.

The candidates ended each in his style. Inslee turned around a question about proposed coal ports and coal trains — of which he is skeptical — to underscore his campaign theme of tying Washington’s economy to a transition away from fossil fuels.

“There is a clean energy industry base in this state so we can deliver energy that is not fossil fuel based,” he said. “We know the world is going to look for huge amounts of clean energy. This is very much our wheel base.”

McKenna took a different tack, noting Democrats’ long domination of state government in Olympia. He denounced “the path of the status quo, which is what Mr. Inslee represents” as a continuation of high costs in doing business, obstacles to hiring, and neglect of education.

Inslee and McKenna will debate again Oct. 11 on multiple Seattle TV stations. If there’s a repeat of Tuesday night’s clashes, the moderators will be tested in their ability to referee — a job ably performed Tuesday by KCTS’ Enrique Cerna.

And the voters? They will be entertained by a sharp contest and contrast while going about the serious business of setting the state’s future direction.